Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1994 (12) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r-in-Appeal No. T-465/BRD-416/85, dated 28-1-1986 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, confirming the Order-in-Original No. 14/MP/80, dated 25-11-1980 of the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Technical Branch, Baroda, where he has imposed penalty of Rs. 7000/- vide Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and has also demanded duty at the appropriate rate on 2507.040 kg of Sodium Naphionate with direction to appropriate the amount if already paid, towards the recovery as ordered (The appellants had reportedly paid Rs. 11,432.10 as the duty on 24-1-1980, by making appropriate entry in their PLA). 3. Appeal No. E/128/86 is against the Order-in-Appeal No. T-466/ BRD-417/85, dated 28-1-1986 of the Collector of Central E .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... their PLA on 24-1-1980. However, on the same day, they again made a credit entry in their PLA for the same amount mentioning in the remarks column this entry is made to set right the illegal debit , without obtaining any permission from any competent authority. In relation to the alleged difference in production figures in the RG 1 Register and the private Note Book, show cause-cum-demand notice dated 28-6-1980 was served on the appellants, whereas in relation to the alleged unauthorised credit entry in their PLA, show cause notice dated 12-9-1980, was issued. The appellants contested both the show cause notices, and pleaded that the alleged admission of their partner Mr. Anil Kumar Doshi was obtained under coercion and was duly retracted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have taken as the figures of production, the Ld. Advocate has pleaded that examining the figures in both, from 29-10-1979 to 19-1-1980, on several dates, no production is shown in the private book but RG 1 register shows the production. He points out 8 such entries. He points out three other entries, where quantity in RG 1 is more than the one in the private note book. He pleads that on taking the aggregate total, there would be hardly any difference, so as to warrant a conclusion of any clandestine manufacture and removal. He refers to the decisions of the Tribunal in Raju Textiles v. Collector - 1989 (44) E.L.T. 233 (Tribunal) Carona Cosmetics v. Collector, 1991 (55) E.L.T. 118 (Tri.) = 1990 (28) ECR 223 (CEGAT NRB), Ganga Rubber Industr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pported both the orders and has pleaded that the Note Book recovered read as a whole, clearly indicates record of actual production, and that the appellants have not been able to show exact co-relation. He has emphasised on the admission made by the partner, and pleads that such a clear admission coupled with posting of the debit entry in PLA could not have been done by a responsible person, without any verification, particularly when duty debit was done two days after the statement. As regards the second appeal, he submits that the action of the appellants was clearly against the set norms, attracting penal liability. 8. Considering the submissions made and going through the record, the allegations of excess and unaccounted production ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd clandestine removal, and has even deposited the duty payable, when the documentary evidence, the authenticity of which is not under dispute, shows otherwise, the same has to be given more credibility than the oral version, spontaneously made. The act of posting debit entry in the PLA could have been a piece of evidence against the appellants as the same was done after two days, but on the same day, the partner has retracted his earlier statement and recredit entry is also made. This indicates that by that time, they seem to have realised falsity in the admission made. 11. With no other evidence available on record, to prove any unrecorded production and clandestine removal, the demand raised and confirmed and the penalty imposed vide O .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates